Could the U.S. be stopped by political power abroad?

[Ponzu]

After following the latest events (Syria, rising gas prices, etc.), and especially the demonizing of Iran, I'm becoming increasingly nervous about what's going to happen. I think it's a matter of when, not if, Iran is invaded. I'm sure the U.S. is waiting on Israel to make the first move, and then have no choice but to step in.

What makes me the most worried is that the politicians and pundits just can't shut up about Iran. It's almost funny how with all the problems in the world, they're haunted by that one nation that just wants an alternative energy source. That's why I know Iran will be attacked, there's just too much propagandizing for everyone to simply drop the issue the next day.

It's kind of a dark fantasy of mine that if the U.S. and/or Israel attacks Iran, China and Russia will come to Iran's side and have an epic stand-off. Let's see how America reacts if it has to fight countries that can actually hurt them. (Iran would put up a fight, but not like the Russians and Chinese could)

I guess the main point of this post is to ask if the combined political, soft power of the rest of the world could be used to shut down America's aggression? I know there are few if any countries on Earth that could defeat America by force of arms alone (at least without using nukes), but perhaps the country's Achilles heel would be in extremely harsh sanctions and other non-violent measures to get us to stop our addiction to war.

America's manufacturing base has been gutted, we're a shadow of our former selves in what we could produce, our dollar may someday no longer be the world's reserve currency. Nations are overtaking us in the sciences. Our government is hopelessly corrupt, our corporations lord over us like we're medieval peasants. I mean, if not for our arms, Hollywood movies and I guess video games, does the rest of the world really need America?

If we unjustly devastate another country, I hope there is enough "soft power" and political influence to choke out our ability to continue making war. I just don't know enough about international politics to know if its possible or not. The alternative could be WW3, and by then it might be too late.

[workersadvocate]

Lately I'm concerned that the most likely way US imperialism will be defeated is by another imperialist country or coalition with a serious CBRN arsenal and space assets.
If we fail to make successful workers' revolution, sooner or later we'll suffer another world war, and the oceans won't protect CONUS this time.
In a world war in the 21st century, every argument we've heard against revolution will be null and void. What good is your private property and your flag and your race and your god when you're vaporized by nukes or dying from chemical and biological weapons? Where could you run away to escape it, seriously?
Another world war is a real possibility, thanks to every asshole you have met or didn't yet meet that had some interest in maintaining this system or stupidly perceived they'd be better off under it.

I don't know if Iran will be the spark of the next world war, but eventually there will be such a spark. Then, it's likely too late, unless workers' revolution has seized power in at least one of the CBRN armed countries and urged immediate international revolution to prevent world war and global destruction. A very thin line will separate the liberation of humanity from the destruction of the planet and most life as we know it...and that is only if the revolutionary left actually got its shit together inside the working class and prepared our class for revolution. Forget about a future if the revolutionary left doesn't at least do that much. Anyone who objectively makes peace with this system curses us with eventual world war.

[GoddessCleoLover]

With respect to the equation; Socialism or barbarism, sad to say that I wouldn't bet any money on socialism these days. To quote signor Gramsci; "pessimism of the intellect, optimism of will."

[TrotskistMarx]

Hi, its true, the USA is falling. However we cannot tell if the US Capitalist-Imperailist Government will be destroyed by the socialist people of the USA, or externally like you wrote here. Watch this great video of professor Chalmers Johnson talking about the fall of imperialist countries (Chalmers Johnson died some years ago). But his words are still valuable today. Thanks !!!


Q2CCs-x9q9U


.

Lately I'm concerned that the most likely way US imperialism will be defeated is by another imperialist country or coalition with a serious CBRN arsenal and space assets.
If we fail to make successful workers' revolution, sooner or later we'll suffer another world war, and the oceans won't protect CONUS this time.
In a world war in the 21st century, every argument we've heard against revolution will be null and void. What good is your private property and your flag and your race and your god when you're vaporized by nukes or dying from chemical and biological weapons? Where could you run away to escape it, seriously?
Another world war is a real possibility, thanks to every asshole you have met or didn't yet meet that had some interest in maintaining this system or stupidly perceived they'd be better off under it.

I don't know if Iran will be the spark of the next world war, but eventually there will be such a spark. Then, it's likely too late, unless workers' revolution has seized power in at least one of the CBRN armed countries and urged immediate international revolution to prevent world war and global destruction. A very thin line will separate the liberation of humanity from the destruction of the planet and most life as we know it...and that is only if the revolutionary left actually got its shit together inside the working class and prepared our class for revolution. Forget about a future if the revolutionary left doesn't at least do that much. Anyone who objectively makes peace with this system curses us with eventual world war.

[TrotskistMarx]

Ponzu: From what I've read in http://www.globalresearch.ca http://www.informationclearinghouse.info http://www.counterpunch.org and other alternative news sites about international politics. Is that the real objective to invade Iran is to steal its oil. Obama, The Pentagon and the US congress won't say in TV: "We want to invade Iran in order to give the oil of Iran to Exxon, Texaco, Shell and B.P"

But that is the real goal of an invasion against Iran. Of course there are geo-political purposes, like to convert Iran into an Israel # 2, or perhaps Israel # 4 (Because Iraq is already an Israel, Colombia is another Israel, I guess there are other Israels (Military Bases for US Empire).

So having said all this, I think that GEO-POLITICAL OBJECTIVES are another goal of attacking Iran.

I am a Trotskist, but at the same time I am a little bit Stalinist, Maoist, Leninist and realist. What I mean is that this world is very complicated very evil. And I think that we might need to create another USSR as a necessary evil to destroy the capitalist system and terrorist nations like USA, Europe, Israel and its allies.

I mean, doing every thing in this world "by the book" is just too hard, too utopian, to perfectionist. It is just too hard to wait for the workers of Mcdonalds, Wal Mart, General Motors and workers of all businesses of the USA to read Marxist books, to become socialists. And for themselves to unite into a Big American Marxist Party. US workes and most workers in this world are too physically tired, from an excess of working, chores, paying bills, getting the basic needs for their children and family, etc. etc.

Well, I think that if the realist stalinist-maoist left doesn't think about something, if Hugo Chavez, Russia, China and Iran do not unite into a new USSR we will be doomed and destroyed by the Pax Americana plan of The Bush Crime Family, the axis of evil (US, Israel, NATO, Saudi Arabia and allies)

.

.


After following the latest events (Syria, rising gas prices, etc.), and especially the demonizing of Iran, I'm becoming increasingly nervous about what's going to happen. I think it's a matter of when, not if, Iran is invaded. I'm sure the U.S. is waiting on Israel to make the first move, and then have no choice but to step in.

What makes me the most worried is that the politicians and pundits just can't shut up about Iran. It's almost funny how with all the problems in the world, they're haunted by that one nation that just wants an alternative energy source. That's why I know Iran will be attacked, there's just too much propagandizing for everyone to simply drop the issue the next day.

It's kind of a dark fantasy of mine that if the U.S. and/or Israel attacks Iran, China and Russia will come to Iran's side and have an epic stand-off. Let's see how America reacts if it has to fight countries that can actually hurt them. (Iran would put up a fight, but not like the Russians and Chinese could)

I guess the main point of this post is to ask if the combined political, soft power of the rest of the world could be used to shut down America's aggression? I know there are few if any countries on Earth that could defeat America by force of arms alone (at least without using nukes), but perhaps the country's Achilles heel would be in extremely harsh sanctions and other non-violent measures to get us to stop our addiction to war.

America's manufacturing base has been gutted, we're a shadow of our former selves in what we could produce, our dollar may someday no longer be the world's reserve currency. Nations are overtaking us in the sciences. Our government is hopelessly corrupt, our corporations lord over us like we're medieval peasants. I mean, if not for our arms, Hollywood movies and I guess video games, does the rest of the world really need America?

If we unjustly devastate another country, I hope there is enough "soft power" and political influence to choke out our ability to continue making war. I just don't know enough about international politics to know if its possible or not. The alternative could be WW3, and by then it might be too late.

[TrotskistMarx]

WORKERSADVOCATE: Indeed, have you read about the suicidal behaviour patterns of humans? Well according to psychiatrists, psychoanalists and psychologists, there has always been in this world the virus of ultra-pessimism, nihilism and suicidal behaviours in the masses. Killing yourself with a gun is not the only ways that humans can kill themselves. There are also suicidal tendencies by slow-death, like binge-eating, driving at very fast speeds, driving while drunk. Over-spending all the money of a family and not saving for food, health and important things.

And I think that another great form of suicide in the masses of many countries is voting for traditional capitalist political parties. Indeed, we have that proof of that. Because in Chile people voted for a neoliberal-capitalist into power (Piñeira), and in Spain as well (Rajoy from The Popular Party of Spain)

And it's true that capitalist parties benefit business owners a lot more than socialist parties. But even in the most richest nations the majority of people are workers, not business-owners. So we can deduct (A priori), that the working class of Spain and Chile have voted for the capitalist system in their societies.

So if American voters keep voting for traditional politicians (Mitt Romney, Obama, Newt Gingritch, Rick Santorium, Jeb Bush etc) it really means that the US workers suffer from suicidal tendencies and by their voting behaviour they are supporting (endorsing) wars, concentration of wealth in a few, diseases (From privatized hospitals and privatized health care system), for hunger, for misery and for death.

Something has to give!!



Lately I'm concerned that the most likely way US imperialism will be defeated is by another imperialist country or coalition with a serious CBRN arsenal and space assets.
If we fail to make successful workers' revolution, sooner or later we'll suffer another world war, and the oceans won't protect CONUS this time.
In a world war in the 21st century, every argument we've heard against revolution will be null and void. What good is your private property and your flag and your race and your god when you're vaporized by nukes or dying from chemical and biological weapons? Where could you run away to escape it, seriously?
Another world war is a real possibility, thanks to every asshole you have met or didn't yet meet that had some interest in maintaining this system or stupidly perceived they'd be better off under it.

I don't know if Iran will be the spark of the next world war, but eventually there will be such a spark. Then, it's likely too late, unless workers' revolution has seized power in at least one of the CBRN armed countries and urged immediate international revolution to prevent world war and global destruction. A very thin line will separate the liberation of humanity from the destruction of the planet and most life as we know it...and that is only if the revolutionary left actually got its shit together inside the working class and prepared our class for revolution. Forget about a future if the revolutionary left doesn't at least do that much. Anyone who objectively makes peace with this system curses us with eventual world war.

[eric922]

Lately I'm concerned that the most likely way US imperialism will be defeated is by another imperialist country or coalition with a serious CBRN arsenal and space assets.
If we fail to make successful workers' revolution, sooner or later we'll suffer another world war, and the oceans won't protect CONUS this time.
In a world war in the 21st century, every argument we've heard against revolution will be null and void. What good is your private property and your flag and your race and your god when you're vaporized by nukes or dying from chemical and biological weapons? Where could you run away to escape it, seriously?
Another world war is a real possibility, thanks to every asshole you have met or didn't yet meet that had some interest in maintaining this system or stupidly perceived they'd be better off under it.

I don't know if Iran will be the spark of the next world war, but eventually there will be such a spark. Then, it's likely too late, unless workers' revolution has seized power in at least one of the CBRN armed countries and urged immediate international revolution to prevent world war and global destruction. A very thin line will separate the liberation of humanity from the destruction of the planet and most life as we know it...and that is only if the revolutionary left actually got its shit together inside the working class and prepared our class for revolution. Forget about a future if the revolutionary left doesn't at least do that much. Anyone who objectively makes peace with this system curses us with eventual world war.
I think you are right on the money with this post. It really is socialism or barbarism now. U.S. meddling in the Middle East may very well start a new World War and I don't think any side can win it. Einstein was right when he said "I know not what weapons world war three will be fought with, but world war four will be fought with sticks and stones."

[Ponzu]

If things come to a standoff in Iran, couldn't China call in the debt the U.S. owes it? People have said this would be to China's detriment to do, but I would need to know more about this to understand. Is there anything OPEC could do? These are some of the things I'm trying to think could dissuade the U.S. from military action.

If I'm not mistaken, isn't the U.S. military budget actually shrinking, and troops being cut? If we try to invade on the cheap, like we did in Iraq, we have to know it couldn't work this time.

If China, Russia and the regional middle eastern powers could make a power play, I would think around now would be a good time to do it. Maybe a multinational trade embargo could work as well. The U.S. imports more than it exports, so maybe by cutting imports to the U.S., it could give the powers that be pause for thought.

We revolutionaries on the home front could do our part as well, with the Occupy movement and such. I've been reluctant to bring up Occupy, cause I think it's still early to know what it's exact beliefs are. But if they're targeting Wall Street, I think it's safe to assume they're on our side :lol: Can't wait to see what they're gonna do in the spring when the weather gets better.

Another thing that makes me worried about the coming war is the militarization of our police forces. Anybody think all of this is a run up to the fallout (radioactively or figuratively speaking :-)) that may result from the next war?

[Strannik]

Even if US war drive could be stopped by imperialists of the other countries (who are all eyeing each others throats as much as US), this would be no victory for the global working class.

I don't think that nuclear war is a real possibility. Imperialism wants to win and there are no winners in a nuclear war. Instead, I believe that world capitalism is going into global degeneration. As a system, they are unable to offer a solution this time.

The solution for capitalist crisis was until now one of the following:

- expand (can't be done, no more untapped lands and resources)
- evolve (new technologies, markets - dubious solution, at our technological level innovation has become too costly and risky to be a social solution).
- conquer a neighbour or simply tear everything down in a world war and start over (can't be done because of nuclear weapons - war will not just level the playing field for capital, it will eliminate capital as well).

Since they are unable to offer a solution, the world capitalism will enter into a period of stagnation. It will slowly fall apart. There is only one serious alternative left - a higher social order, i.e. socialism.

[TrotskistMarx]

You are 100% right about the extreme police dictatorial state in the last 4 years of Obama, even a lot stronger than the 8 years of Bush. And the bad thing about this hell is that most american regular joes out there, are not doing their part in opposing this police-hell on earth. I guess that they are waiting for a slow death. You gotta think about the needs of people. I think that because the personal routines of most americans are so boring, so dull, which is a daily routine of working, chores, grocery shopping, and nothing else. Maybe they have figured out to themselves and jumped to the conclusion that they can live perfectly happy, without any problems with the police authorities, and even with Adolf Hitler as USA president doing their dull boring routines of working grocery shopping, law-mowing and nothing else (What a boring country). Because those daily activities can be performed within a nazi police dictatorship without any problem with the nazi police forces.

That's what I really think on why millions of american regular people are not supporting The Occupy Protests and are not even members of any political party. They are not even right-wingers, totally 100% away from politics, because like I said you don't have a deep need for liberty, an obssession for liberty, a deep *desire* to live in a political system without police oppression, they have maybe figured out that they don't need personal liberty to go to work, for their domestic chores and to eat. So maybe that's why millions of americans are perfectly happy living in this police dictatorship and even with Hitler as president.

There are elements of conformism, phyisical lazyness (poor physical energies to revolt, be angry and be socialists), and many other causes that determine the extreme suicidal tendencies and support for this police dictatorship of most americans.


.
.



If things come to a standoff in Iran, couldn't China call in the debt the U.S. owes it? People have said this would be to China's detriment to do, but I would need to know more about this to understand. Is there anything OPEC could do? These are some of the things I'm trying to think could dissuade the U.S. from military action.

If I'm not mistaken, isn't the U.S. military budget actually shrinking, and troops being cut? If we try to invade on the cheap, like we did in Iraq, we have to know it couldn't work this time.

If China, Russia and the regional middle eastern powers could make a power play, I would think around now would be a good time to do it. Maybe a multinational trade embargo could work as well. The U.S. imports more than it exports, so maybe by cutting imports to the U.S., it could give the powers that be pause for thought.

We revolutionaries on the home front could do our part as well, with the Occupy movement and such. I've been reluctant to bring up Occupy, cause I think it's still early to know what it's exact beliefs are. But if they're targeting Wall Street, I think it's safe to assume they're on our side :lol: Can't wait to see what they're gonna do in the spring when the weather gets better.

Another thing that makes me worried about the coming war is the militarization of our police forces. Anybody think all of this is a run up to the fallout (radioactively or figuratively speaking :-)) that may result from the next war?

[Decolonize The Left]

There won't be a world war if the west invades Iran.

You need to stop thinking of the geo-political arena as a game played by nation-states and instead think of it as a game played by international economic players. It is the capitalist class which controls the game and this class seeks to exploit new markets (read: Iran). There are plenty of people in China who are members of this class, and they are using the Chinese (and Russian) governments to hedge their ability to capitalize on this oil region.

Going to war with the US helps no one in the capitalist class. Wars are not fought by super powers anymore - they are fought via proxy. Israel, Iran, etc... These nations will go to war and the US will supply air support, etc... China and Russia might do the same but they won't come to actual blows themselves as this would disrupt the international economy and the owners of the international economy profit from proxy wars, but won't profit as much from a full-blown international free-for-all.

- August

[TrotskistMarx]

Strannik: true and I think that another solution for capitalism to be saved would be to increase wages of workers. But I think that is impossible because the rising costs of oil, and the costs of goods and services unable business owners (capitalist class) to raise the wages of the working class of the world.

Like you said capitalism will not continue for much longer. However since the majority of people in this world are so dumbed down by movies, sports games, capitalist music and capitalist mainstream entertainment and art, by telenovelas, and all that junk that fills the minds of people. It is real hard to see real marxists, real leftists, real trotskists, real leninists, socialist political parties gaining strength in all countries of the world.

What we see in many countries are third way parties (Social-democratic parties) as options for the right-wing capitalist parties.

It is the task of the marxism left all over the world to become serious, get funding, resources, money to buy TV stations, newspapers, and other forms of media in order to spread the marxism knowledge to all the poor people of the world.


.



Even if US war drive could be stopped by imperialists of the other countries (who are all eyeing each others throats as much as US), this would be no victory for the global working class.

I don't think that nuclear war is a real possibility. Imperialism wants to win and there are no winners in a nuclear war. Instead, I believe that world capitalism is going into global degeneration. As a system, they are unable to offer a solution this time.

The solution for capitalist crisis was until now one of the following:

- expand (can't be done, no more untapped lands and resources)
- evolve (new technologies, markets - dubious solution, at our technological level innovation has become too costly and risky to be a social solution).
- conquer a neighbour or simply tear everything down in a world war and start over (can't be done because of nuclear weapons - war will not just level the playing field for capital, it will eliminate capital as well).

Since they are unable to offer a solution, the world capitalism will enter into a period of stagnation. It will slowly fall apart. There is only one serious alternative left - a higher social order, i.e. socialism.

[TrotskistMarx]

AUGUST: wow you are real real smart, you should be president of the whole world !! Thanks a lot my great friend for that 100% clear-cupt explanation. By the way I like the books of Fredrich Nietzsche a lot. And indeed you are right about wars not being fought by the 300 million people of USA, by the 7 millions of Israeli citizens against the millions of Iranian people.

Yeah you are right, they are fought by an oligarchic-faction of USA, Europe etc, against the burocratic-oligarchic rules of Iran.

I guess that's why Gianni Vattimo (An Italian Philosopher) said that the next big world war, will be fought by the poor people of the world vs. the rich people of the world, I guess that's when all the socialist people of the world will overthrow the capitalist class of the whole world.


.



There won't be a world war if the west invades Iran.

You need to stop thinking of the geo-political arena as a game played by nation-states and instead think of it as a game played by international economic players. It is the capitalist class which controls the game and this class seeks to exploit new markets (read: Iran). There are plenty of people in China who are members of this class, and they are using the Chinese (and Russian) governments to hedge their ability to capitalize on this oil region.

Going to war with the US helps no one in the capitalist class. Wars are not fought by super powers anymore - they are fought via proxy. Israel, Iran, etc... These nations will go to war and the US will supply air support, etc... China and Russia might do the same but they won't come to actual blows themselves as this would disrupt the international economy and the owners of the international economy profit from proxy wars, but won't profit as much from a full-blown international free-for-all.

- August

[Decolonize The Left]

AUGUST: wow you are real real smart, you should be president of the whole world !! Thanks a lot my great friend for that 100% clear-cupt explanation. By the way I like the books of Fredrich Nietzsche a lot. And indeed you are right about wars not being fought by the 300 million people of USA, by the 7 millions of Israeli citizens against the millions of Iranian people.

Yeah you are right, they are fought by an oligarchic-faction of USA, Europe etc, against the burocratic-oligarchic rules of Iran.

I guess that's why Gianni Vattimo (An Italian Philosopher) said that the next big world war, will be fought by the poor people of the world vs. the rich people of the world, I guess that's when all the socialist people of the world will overthrow the capitalist class of the whole world.
.

I do not think that socialism will come about from a massive war between poor and rich. This war would not be allowed to occur by the ruling class as it would fundamentally jeopardize their position.

More likely is that socialism will come about through the continuous process of communization by different peoples in different parts of the world. Class consciousness comes about individually, a phenomenon which can be spurred globally but fundamentally must come about in each and every worker themselves.

Remember that wars are economic actions of aggression. They are activities conducted by proxy (as the economic actors never fire a bullet or set foot on the ground) and are used to create and exploit new markets.

We are far from socialism as capitalism must reach its logical conclusion before relative deprivation sets in enough to nudge the working class into action as a whole.

- August

[workersadvocate]

So, on the one hand, you need destabilizing uncontrolled international warfare between the Great Powers to create the circumstances in which working class average joes realize that they need revolution and need it right now.

On the other hand, few in the Great Power countries are so miserable and so immediately pressed as to seek out revolution as an alternative to 10 thousand other various forms of distractions, safer panaceas and non-revolutionary choices. Without the barrel of a gun to their heads to clarify things up quickly, we Americans proudly live in "screw you I'm doing okay" land.

I think I'm gonna go dust off my Marilyn Manson music and listen for a bit.

Peace, stability, comfort, escape, distractions, status quo continuance...these are gonna kill us, yet Americans are fucking addicted to them.
For revolution to be "in demand", we need to cut off the "supply" of these things Americans are so addicted to. Eliminate all other options from the table...too fucking bad if the medicine is harsh. Not like the Americans gave a shit about how harsh it was for people "over there".

[Decolonize The Left]

So, on the one hand, you need destabilizing uncontrolled international warfare between the Great Powers to create the circumstances in which working class average joes realize that they need revolution and need it right now.

On the other hand, few in the Great Power countries are so miserable and so immediately pressed as to seek out revolution as an alternative to 10 thousand other various forms of distractions, safer panaceas and non-revolutionary choices. Without the barrel of a gun to their heads to clarify things up quickly, we Americans proudly live in "screw you I'm doing okay" land.

I think I'm gonna go dust off my Marilyn Manson music and listen for a bit.

Peace, stability, comfort, escape, distractions, status quo continuance...these are gonna kill us, yet Americans are fucking addicted to them.
For revolution to be "in demand", we need to cut off the "supply" of these things Americans are so addicted to. Eliminate all other options from the table...too fucking bad if the medicine is harsh. Not like the Americans gave a shit about how harsh it was for people "over there".

Incorrect. You cannot bring about a revolution by increasing the suffering of your fellow working class.

Certainly it is true that relative deprivation will lead to increased class consciousness, but relative deprivation is not something that can be forced, it is a passive phenomenon which occurs under all forms of economic and political structures.

If you wish to hasten the revolution, you'd be far better off laying the groundwork for class struggle; i.e. starting the communization of everyday life. Your fellow workers will need this when they become class conscious, they will not need your help in suffering as we all suffer enough each day as it is.

- August

[workersadvocate]

Incorrect. You cannot bring about a revolution by increasing the suffering of your fellow working class.

Certainly it is true that relative deprivation will lead to increased class consciousness, but relative deprivation is not something that can be forced, it is a passive phenomenon which occurs under all forms of economic and political structures.

If you wish to hasten the revolution, you'd be far better off laying the groundwork for class struggle; i.e. starting the communization of everyday life. Your fellow workers will need this when they become class conscious, they will not need your help in suffering as we all suffer enough each day as it is.

- August

I don't have the power to do jack shit at this point, and struggle to find the basic motivation to change that if it even can be changed. Hard to give a shit about people who don't give a shit or basically just want this system. The war drums are beating against Iran...but if you live in America, look around, nobody gives a shit, since it's "over there" and nobody here thinks anything can touch us offensively. Nothing to worry about unless they are in the military (less than 1% of the US population). Americans just assume that the other great powers will maybe whine a bit but get out of the USA's way in the end like usual. Maybe ot'll cost a lot if money to wage that war "over there", but who cares, it's what we Americans do to make sure nobody can ever touch us. That's how most Americans think of it...any evil os acceptable for "our country" to perpetrate so long as no "bad guys" are attacking us in our own yards, homes and streets and we can continue watching sports, going to church, drinking at the bars, shopping at the malls, driving our cars and watching TV like nothing matters.
Ever wonder what would happen if those distractions, conveniences, comforts taken for granted, and room to escape the consequences of warmongering were somehow taken away and "shit finally got real" for Americans on their own turf? What would happen if the power went out, they couldn't trust their own food and water, it wasn't necessarily safe to go roaming around in public, logistical and communication systems have broken down, civil authority is not readily available and calling 911 won't do you any good?
I don't mean that by itself would solve things. The revolutionary alternative must be prepared and already a significant fact of life for many working people in order to resolve the question. But, my point is, so long as American life as we know it essentially continues, forget about mass support for a revolutionary systematic change. No pain, no gain. Gotta get the American " monkey on our back" out of the way first. Make going back impossible.
Kill the American Dream that keeps people asleep and docile and comforted. Wake up...monsters are real, and they've been running society a long time, and now we suffer for allowing them to rule while we were fucking around doing our own things and not giving a fuck. When pain comes to themselves, suddenly people begin to give a fuck and want to do something to stop that pain. It won't be nice rational arguments that pursuade most people...it will be the choice between more pain or a chance to stop that pain and maybe even rebuild a better world. Revolution, to stop the killing and dying and suffering around us, not because of what somebody else said in a book a century ago.

What do you suppose it would realize take to create mass support and active involvement in a proletarian revolution in the USA? The paths of less resistance must be gone, and survival of the many depends on successful revolution.

[GoddessCleoLover]

The "American dream" is one of many devices of cultural hegemony that have existed throughout US history and accelerated following the second World War. Ironically, the bourgeoisie is itself killing the "American dream" in its lust for maximized profitability. As revolutionaries our best course of action would be to point out that the best way forward for American workers is to once again assert the type of class consciousness that fostered the industrial unionization movement of the 1930s. That would give us some basis to seek to further develop a type of political consciousness amongst the working class.

[workersadvocate]

This sounds all well and good about consciousness and organizing, but are you just left to praying for miracles for revolutionary objective prerequite conditions to occur in Great Powers like the USA?

Don't objective conditions and social being effect consciousness?
Don't all other alternative paths have to be effectively eliminated (made objectively impossible) in order for masses of working people to take the revolutionary road?
Doesn't it have to be made impossible for the ruling class to govern "as usual" even one more day?
Don't working people in their majority have to be at such point ehere they literallt cannot put up with the current system even one more day?

So not only must the working class become much stronger, but the system must become much weaker for revolution to even be considered a possible and more desireable course by a majority of working people. So, what are the enemy weaknesses that can be exploited and made more acute? What enemy strengths can be turned into weaknesses? What can be done to cause working people to lose all confidence in the myths and power of the reigning system and in fact to see it as "enemy" not "ours"? What can be done to eliminate any possibility of reformist capitulation, to bring our class struggle to it final revolutiinary conclusion and not anywhere else but victory to the workers of the world?

Yes, surely, we urgently need to be rebuilding the workers' movement, but, let's not do it for any other reason then to win our revolution d endure transition to a society of liberated humanity. As long as the possibility exists and our victory is not yet acheived, all sorts of other paths will be tempting us to go the shorter easier more peaceful gradual reformist road to a phyrric phony victory ( that will not last long, since it kept the system alive to fight us and victimize us again another day). The thing we must do will be the thing we least want to do until there is no other choice but to make revolution just in order to have the chance to survive one more day! It won't be books and speeches that convince masses...it will be the desire to survive and avoid more pain, danger, uncertainty, when they can no longer realistically expect protection or necessary services or the old "quality of life" from the system, when they fear revolution less then they fear for their fate under the current reigning state and its partners. So think about what would have to happen for such objective circumstances to develop in a Great Power like the USA.

[Ostrinski]

AUGUST: wow you are real real smart, you should be president of the whole world !!I second this.

[Hexen]

What I've been recently worrying that the recent situation is like the Cuban Missile Crisis about that if Israel attacks Iran (I'm also fearing that they'll drop the first nuke on Iran), the US would be sucked into it therefore Russia would intervene and it would cause a Nuclear War (since I believe someone told me that he read somewhere on Reuters that Russia according to the Geneva convention (if I'm saying this correctly) would use Nuclear weapons anywhere around the world if their national security was threatened which also means if Iran is attacked) although I hope I'm wrong and this could be media fear mongering.

[Decolonize The Left]

Ever wonder what would happen if those distractions, conveniences, comforts taken for granted, and room to escape the consequences of warmongering were somehow taken away and "shit finally got real" for Americans on their own turf? What would happen if the power went out, they couldn't trust their own food and water, it wasn't necessarily safe to go roaming around in public, logistical and communication systems have broken down, civil authority is not readily available and calling 911 won't do you any good?
This one half of what is called relative deprivation (it is the physical reality half). The other half is the ideological component of modern-day society. When they come in stark contrast to one another, the individual in question suffers relative deprivation and begins to seek alternatives.


I don't mean that by itself would solve things. The revolutionary alternative must be prepared and already a significant fact of life for many working people in order to resolve the question. But, my point is, so long as American life as we know it essentially continues, forget about mass support for a revolutionary systematic change. No pain, no gain. Gotta get the American " monkey on our back" out of the way first. Make going back impossible.

Going back is impossible. Capitalism is a one way ticket to polarization of classes, consolidation of wealth, and massive production of consumer culture.


Kill the American Dream that keeps people asleep and docile and comforted. Wake up...monsters are real, and they've been running society a long time, and now we suffer for allowing them to rule while we were fucking around doing our own things and not giving a fuck. When pain comes to themselves, suddenly people begin to give a fuck and want to do something to stop that pain. It won't be nice rational arguments that pursuade most people...it will be the choice between more pain or a chance to stop that pain and maybe even rebuild a better world. Revolution, to stop the killing and dying and suffering around us, not because of what somebody else said in a book a century ago.

I believe your problem is that you are approaching is dilemma from an ideological point-of-view. That is to say that you are looking at this in terms of the American public's ideas about capitalism (the American Dream) and how this is problematic.

Marxism teaches us that ideas arise from physical reality. Hence the problem is not "the American Dream," the problem is the economic system which props up the American Dream as a feasible model for success. Yes it is true that if someone gives up their ideals they will not have faith in their system, but this is highly unlikely and too problematic. There's no telling where they'll turn and they might just drop out (think the hippies from the early 60s).


What do you suppose it would realize take to create mass support and active involvement in a proletarian revolution in the USA? The paths of less resistance must be gone, and survival of the many depends on successful revolution.

The working-class will become political active as a class only after they have become class conscious. They will become class conscious then the physical realities of capitalism dictate to them their misfortune - i.e. when they suffer relative deprivation.

As I said before, you cannot 'hurry this along.'

Our job as class conscious members of this class is to lay the groundwork for working-class action. We are only the 'vanguard' in this sense: we understand the terms of the game and the players. Hence we must clear the avenues of action, we must prepare the playing field.

We do this through active, everyday, communization of our respective spheres of life.

- August

[Decolonize The Left]

What I've been recently worrying that the recent situation is like the Cuban Missile Crisis about that if Israel attacks Iran (I'm also fearing that they'll drop the first nuke on Iran), the US would be sucked into it therefore Russia would intervene and it would cause a Nuclear War (since I believe someone told me that he read somewhere on Reuters that Russia according to the Geneva convention (if I'm saying this correctly) would use Nuclear weapons anywhere around the world if their national security was threatened which also means if Iran is attacked) although I hope I'm wrong and this could be media fear mongering.

No one wants nuclear war - not even the capitalist class. So you don't really have to worry about this. The threat of nuclear war, on the other hand, will be used repeatedly and pervasively to push public opinion in favor of war.

- August

[piet11111]

There won't be a world war if the west invades Iran.

You need to stop thinking of the geo-political arena as a game played by nation-states and instead think of it as a game played by international economic players. It is the capitalist class which controls the game and this class seeks to exploit new markets (read: Iran). There are plenty of people in China who are members of this class, and they are using the Chinese (and Russian) governments to hedge their ability to capitalize on this oil region.

Going to war with the US helps no one in the capitalist class. Wars are not fought by super powers anymore - they are fought via proxy. Israel, Iran, etc... These nations will go to war and the US will supply air support, etc... China and Russia might do the same but they won't come to actual blows themselves as this would disrupt the international economy and the owners of the international economy profit from proxy wars, but won't profit as much from a full-blown international free-for-all.

- August

But the bourgeois are not unified what is good for the USA is bad for Russia and China.
The Americans are already trying to encircle China and position themselves into areas where they can cut of China's supply lines through Indonesia's waterways and this is why they want to take out Iran (major supplier of oil and potential for a land pipeline through Pakistan directly to China avoiding waterways) and are trying to get closer to Birma (another pipeline candidate)

All these wars in the middle east are about gaining political control over oil so they can select whom will receive this oil.

Already there have been wars that had the potential of triggering a greater war.
Take for instance the 2008 Russia-Georgian war that had the limited potential of NATO involvement (Saakashvilli counted on NATO backing)

All it takes is one side to miscalculate the response of the others and the Americans are making a mighty big bet that a war on Syria and Iran wont be followed by a response from Russia and/or China and they might decide that to allow America to keep overthrowing country's friendly to them might cost them more then to use their military might to protect their allies in the hope that the Americans back down before it comes to war.

[Decolonize The Left]

But the bourgeois are not unified what is good for the USA is bad for Russia and China.
The Americans are already trying to encircle China and position themselves into areas where they can cut of China's supply lines through Indonesia's waterways and this is why they want to take out Iran (major supplier of oil and potential for a land pipeline through Pakistan directly to China avoiding waterways) and are trying to get closer to Birma (another pipeline candidate)

All these wars in the middle east are about gaining political control over oil so they can select whom will receive this oil.

Already there have been wars that had the potential of triggering a greater war.
Take for instance the 2008 Russia-Georgian war that had the limited potential of NATO involvement (Saakashvilli counted on NATO backing)

All it takes is one side to miscalculate the response of the others and the Americans are making a mighty big bet that a war on Syria and Iran wont be followed by a response from Russia and/or China and they might decide that to allow America to keep overthrowing country's friendly to them might cost them more then to use their military might to protect their allies in the hope that the Americans back down before it comes to war.

I agree with pretty much everything here.

My point is that with the global economy as interconnected and interdependent as it is at the moment, a global war involving major superpowers (US, Russia, China, Western Europe) would put an end to a vast amount of international trade which would effectively cripple a large portion of the capitalist class' economic basis.

I just don't see it happening - not that it's not possible, I just find it unlikely.

- August

[piet11111]

During the great depression international trade also broke down not because the individual capitalists wanted that to happen but because they had no choice as they where cut of from credit.

And i can actually see that happen again where banks who are now more powerful then ever can actually deny industrial capitalists credit that they need to buy the resources they need to produce goods.
Already Greek industrialists are forced to pay up front for their orders because their ability to pay has been put into doubt.

When Greece goes under its not a big leap to start questioning the ability of other European country's to pay their debts (Spain Italy Portugal)

I would expect international trade to break down before another great war becomes a likely possibility.

[the last donut of the night]

Incorrect. You cannot bring about a revolution by increasing the suffering of your fellow working class.



this. hungry people don't fight for freedom, they fight for food

[Blake's Baby]

There won't be a world war if the west invades Iran.

You need to stop thinking of the geo-political arena as a game played by nation-states and instead think of it as a game played by international economic players. It is the capitalist class which controls the game and this class seeks to exploit new markets (read: Iran). There are plenty of people in China who are members of this class, and they are using the Chinese (and Russian) governments to hedge their ability to capitalize on this oil region.

Going to war with the US helps no one in the capitalist class. Wars are not fought by super powers anymore - they are fought via proxy. Israel, Iran, etc... These nations will go to war and the US will supply air support, etc... China and Russia might do the same but they won't come to actual blows themselves as this would disrupt the international economy and the owners of the international economy profit from proxy wars, but won't profit as much from a full-blown international free-for-all.

- August

I'd like, in one way, to believe this is true.

But, you know what? Members of the Italian Communist Left theorised almost exactly the same position in 1938, arguing that capitalism had too much invested in stability and the coming confrontations between Germany, France, USSR and US would not lead to global war because it would disrupt the economy too much.

Sadly that turned out to be very very wrong.

[workersadvocate]

this. hungry people don't fight for freedom, they fight for food

Has it really ever been otherwise?
"Peace. Land. Bread."

[Hexen]

I'd like, in one way, to believe this is true.

But, you know what? Members of the Italian Communist Left theorised almost exactly the same position in 1938, arguing that capitalism had too much invested in stability and the coming confrontations between Germany, France, USSR and US would not lead to global war because it would disrupt the economy too much.

Sadly that turned out to be very very wrong.

Well the 1930s was also a different time than it is today which is what AugustWest was trying to imply if you read his post carefully enough.

Excerpt


Wars are not fought by super powers anymore - they are fought via proxy. Israel, Iran, etc...

[piet11111]

Well the 1930s was also a different time than it is today which is what AugustWest was trying to imply if you read his post carefully enough.

Right i very clearly recall from historic news reels that ww1 was the war to end all wars and that another world war would never happen again because it would simply be to horrific for any country to start.

Proxy wars work just fine until they don't there will be a point where Russia and China will have to take a stand against American aggression against their allies and defend them with their full military might hoping that the Americans will back down.

Russia and China are losing influence in the middle east very rapidly if Syria falls then Russia loses its only remaining naval base in the mediterranean sea and if Iran falls then China loses a large part of its oil imports (i can not find the source but if i recall correctly Iran supplies 20% of China's oil consumption)

Clearly for both Russia and China its in their own interest if they start to militarily back up Syria and Iran before the Americans throw them out of those country's.
And if not for those country's then its only a matter of time for Washington to target another one of their client regimes.

[GoddessCleoLover]

China might emerge as a rival power to the United States in ten or twenty years, and seek to have Russia be its junior partner in opposition to American hegemony. Right now, China is still building up its military forces and is not yet ready to challenge the USA, but that could change in time. Russia have seen its power diminish since the fall of the Union and I don't see Russia as more than a potential partner for the Chinese.

[Blake's Baby]

Well the 1930s was also a different time than it is today which is what AugustWest was trying to imply if you read his post carefully enough.

Excerpt

I read it carefully. No matter how carefully one reads it, it's still wrong.

Wars in the 1930s were fought by proxies too. Germany and Italy didn't invade the USSR, they fought a proxy war in Spain.

Looks similar enough to bring the rest of the argumentation into doubt in my view.

Capitalism doesn't often settle down and go, 'you know what? It would be better if we all just got on and stopped competing'. I don't see why it should now.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Right now the USA is the world's greatest military power, but China is quickly building up its military forces and seeks to dominate at least east Asia.

[Hexen]

I read it carefully. No matter how carefully one reads it, it's still wrong.

Wars in the 1930s were fought by proxies too. Germany and Italy didn't invade the USSR, they fought a proxy war in Spain.

Looks similar enough to bring the rest of the argumentation into doubt in my view.

Capitalism doesn't often settle down and go, 'you know what? It would be better if we all just got on and stopped competing'. I don't see why it should now.

Well considering what Gramsci Guy has said, The U.S. is currently the sole superpower while in the 1930s there were multiple ones which is what AugustWest was talking about.

[Blake's Baby]

OK, then the argument isn't that capitalism won't lead us to destruction because there's too much invested in stability, but because the US is currently out-competing everyone else. That's not the same thing.

What it might mean though is that as every country wants its 'place in the sun' (because we're all imperialists now) this makes things more dangerous not less. Back in the days of the Blocs, for instance, there was a dynamic towards global war for sure, but there was also a certain tidiness. You were either pro-America or Pro-Russia. Not many other options (even for all those supposedly 'neutral' or 'non-aligned' countries - they were just being schmoozed by both sides).

Now there's less discipline, and that makes things even more unpredictable.

[piet11111]

Well considering what Gramsci Guy has said, The U.S. is currently the sole superpower while in the 1930s there were multiple ones which is what AugustWest was talking about.

But the USA is a superpower in decline and we all know that means a lot of great powers competing to fill the void.

Already the USA can not handle a land war + occupation of Iran and that creates opportunity's for its main rivals Russia and China.
Israel will eventually start a war with Iran but its limited to aerial bombardments even with Americans being drawn into supporting their war.
So if Russia and China where to decide to boost Irans defenses to make aerial attacks way too costly they can force peace on their terms.

Russia is relatively weak but it has very impressive military technology that Iran needs.
Its this that Israel and Washington fears most that Iran acquires systems like the S-300 and manages to put their nuclear infrastructure underground into hardened bunkers.

[Decolonize The Left]

I read it carefully. No matter how carefully one reads it, it's still wrong.

Wars in the 1930s were fought by proxies too. Germany and Italy didn't invade the USSR, they fought a proxy war in Spain.

Looks similar enough to bring the rest of the argumentation into doubt in my view.

Capitalism doesn't often settle down and go, 'you know what? It would be better if we all just got on and stopped competing'. I don't see why it should now.

No, actually in the 1930s we witnessed a major war which was fought openly between major national powers: the Second Sino-Japenese War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Sino-Japanese_War). Furthermore, we also witnessed the rise and establishment of the Nazi Party in Germany which would lead to WWII, a war also fought openly between major national powers.

The Spanish Civil War, while starting in 1936, would not be considered a 'proxy war' in the sense that a national power wanted resources in Spain but didn't want to engage in open conflict. It was a proxy war in the sense that the major powers wanted to test the waters, etc... but it's not the same as what's happening in the Middle East - not by a long shot.

What I'm saying is that in regards to the Middle East, we are witnessing a capitalist imperialist expansion of control in the region. This is not a cultural war and hence it is not a war being waged between nation-states. It is a war being waged between economic forces in order to secure oil reserves.

With this point in mind, it is irrational to conduct widespread open warfare because it will most likely result in the total destruction of the local infrastructure, a withering of what little support exists, and a total destruction of the very resources the imperialists are looking to secure. It is vastly more rational to conduct small, local, proxy wars which seek to change the political superstructure in the region in order to secure a backdoor for intranational corporate interests.

- August

[Ocean Seal]

No at the moment, the United States enjoys unchallenged global hegemony.
Edit: To August: How can you say that the capitalist class doesn't want nuclear war. Nuclear war, is basically the reset clock to class struggle. It will allow them to rebuild everything in put off the contradictions in capital.

[Decolonize The Left]

No at the moment, the United States enjoys unchallenged global hegemony.
Edit: To August: How can you say that the capitalist class doesn't want nuclear war. Nuclear war, is basically the reset clock to class struggle. It will allow them to rebuild everything in put off the contradictions in capital.

Because I am thinking in the interests of the capitalist class. Capitalism is now an unchallenged global economy - it is, in essence, exactly what it wants to be: in control of everything.

So with this in mind, why would you want to wreck everything you just built? Global nuclear war doesn't "reset anything" except the infrastructure necessary to move the goods and services which you (as a member of the capitalist class) will profit from. If anything, nuclear war is the worst of all possible solutions (revolution aside, of course) as it requires destroying the network of power which keeps you rich.

Think about it.

- August

[piet11111]

With this point in mind, it is irrational to conduct widespread open warfare because it will most likely result in the total destruction of the local infrastructure, a withering of what little support exists, and a total destruction of the very resources the imperialists are looking to secure.
- August

Even with the total destruction of local infrastructure the oil reserves would still remain heck it might even be beneficial to destroy say Irans oil infrastructure if it means China wont get a drop and give America a chance to overthrow Iran's government before they get around to pumping up that oil again.

And as far as total destruction of the resources goes not even a nuclear war would take out the oil supplies that haven't been pumped up yet.
The best Saddam could do was to set fire to Kuwait's oil sites and while it was a pain in the ass to put those out it didn't affect Kuwait's reserves all that much to my knowledge.

And regarding WW2 it was the total ruin of European and Asian productive capacity that allowed capitalism to return to profitability and another massively destructive war could do the same for capitalism today.
I do not think the bourgeois would choose that path willingly but they are stuck on a runaway train.

[workersadvocate]

Because I am thinking in the interests of the capitalist class. Capitalism is now an unchallenged global economy - it is, in essence, exactly what it wants to be: in control of everything.

So with this in mind, why would you want to wreck everything you just built? Global nuclear war doesn't "reset anything" except the infrastructure necessary to move the goods and services which you (as a member of the capitalist class) will profit from. If anything, nuclear war is the worst of all possible solutions (revolution aside, of course) as it requires destroying the network of power which keeps you rich.

Think about it.

- August
The capitalist class isn't some uniform disciplined international conspiracy.
They all seek to be the biggest of the big dogs in a dog-eat-dog system. Them dogs are gonna scrap.

[Hexen]

The capitalist class isn't some uniform disciplined international conspiracy.
They all seek to be the biggest of the big dogs in a dog-eat-dog system. Them dogs are gonna scrap.

Enough with the fear mongering, what AugustWest is also trying to imply that the world is capitalist and a nuclear war would pretty much break/sabotage the capitalist system like SOPA would have to the internet for example.

[Decolonize The Left]

Even with the total destruction of local infrastructure the oil reserves would still remain heck it might even be beneficial to destroy say Irans oil infrastructure if it means China wont get a drop and give America a chance to overthrow Iran's government before they get around to pumping up that oil again.

I don't see that happening. If the US/allies went after Iran directly, China and Russia would be forced to side with Iran and send troops on the ground. This is a situation none of these governments want as it would end in a stalemate and cost enormous amounts of money.


And as far as total destruction of the resources goes not even a nuclear war would take out the oil supplies that haven't been pumped up yet.
The best Saddam could do was to set fire to Kuwait's oil sites and while it was a pain in the ass to put those out it didn't affect Kuwait's reserves all that much to my knowledge.

It takes roads, trucks, airports, seaports, ships, planes, workers, machinery, factories, etc... to pump the oil. Imperialism 101 is to have your companies use the locals to build up the infrastructure, then lay claim to the actual resources and use this infrastructure to export the goods. It would be rather pointless to destroy it all then try and rebuild it in a very dangerous political climate.

Furthermore, if the war you are talking about actually happened, the price of oil would skyrocket immediately and would cripple the global economy. Imagine what the US would look like if gas was $15 a gallon or more and the US government was openly responsible for this price change.

It just won't happen.


And regarding WW2 it was the total ruin of European and Asian productive capacity that allowed capitalism to return to profitability and another massively destructive war could do the same for capitalism today.
I do not think the bourgeois would choose that path willingly but they are stuck on a runaway train.

A good point. But we aren't in the same stage of capitalism as we were then. It is important to note that while the underlying principles of capitalism remain the same (and the contradictions as well), the whole system undergoes a constant evolution and hence we cannot assume that the same external factors will result in the same internal changes.

- August

[Decolonize The Left]

The capitalist class isn't some uniform disciplined international conspiracy.
They all seek to be the biggest of the big dogs in a dog-eat-dog system. Them dogs are gonna scrap.

What the fuck are you talking about?

This is some silly rhetoric you're putting forth, you almost sound like a high-school economics teacher trying to explain why the market price is a great determinant of value.

Sure the capitalist class competes within itself, but this competition is limited to the further accumulation and consolidation of capital. It's not a life or death thing like it is often for the working class. Do you really think the CEO of Ford feels like he's gonna die when the CEO of Honda buys a new plant in the same city as his? No. He's like "hmmm... they are expanding their infrastructure in order to leverage against my hegemony in this region. I should respond to this in the following ways...".

- August

[workersadvocate]

What the fuck are you talking about?

This is some silly rhetoric you're putting forth, you almost sound like a high-school economics teacher trying to explain why the market price is a great determinant of value.

Sure the capitalist class competes within itself, but this competition is limited to the further accumulation and consolidation of capital. It's not a life or death thing like it is often for the working class. Do you really think the CEO of Ford feels like he's gonna die when the CEO of Honda buys a new plant in the same city as his? No. He's like "hmmm... they are expanding their infrastructure in order to leverage against my hegemony in this region. I should respond to this in the following ways...".

- August

OKAY, since capitalism seems to have safely resolved its contradictions and everything is under control now, why wouldn't capitalism continue into perpetuity?
What it sounds like you are saying is that revolutionary conditions will not ever develop.

[eric922]

No at the moment, the United States enjoys unchallenged global hegemony.
Edit: To August: How can you say that the capitalist class doesn't want nuclear war. Nuclear war, is basically the reset clock to class struggle. It will allow them to rebuild everything in put off the contradictions in capital.
If the capitalist class actually wants nuclear war then they are even more short sighted than I thought. Nuclear war could very easily destroy capitalism itself, who knows what economic system would emerge from ruins, if the human race even survives. I highly doubt any member of the capitalist class would be willing to take the risk of using nuclear weapons. As to the comment about them fixing the contradictions in capital, I doubt that's possible, anymore than "fixing" gravity. Though,after looking over your post again I think I'm misinterpreting you, you mean "put off" as in delay.

[workersadvocate]

If the capitalist class actually wants nuclear war then they are even more short sighted than I thought. Nuclear war could very easily destroy capitalism itself, who knows what economic system would emerge from ruins, if the human race even survives. I highly doubt any member of the capitalist class would be willing to take the risk of using nuclear weapons. As to the comment about them fixing the contradictions in capital, I doubt that's possible, anymore than "fixing" gravity. Though,after looking over your post again I think I'm misinterpreting you, you mean "put off" as in delay.

I mean, how could capitalism today keep itself from eventually condemning humanity and the earth to death?
Have they resolved this?
Do the capitalists--- who are not one singular united conspiracy, but a series of competiting concerns--- have certain unchallengeable reign of the world and have they established the order of things amongst themselves forever?
Or are even the capitalists ultimately the slaves of the system that created and nourished them? Are the capitalists themselves forced by their circumstances and the system's logic to do even what they wouldn't choose to do otherwise?
The continued existence of CBRN arsenals, all alone, answers the question. It still exists because one day, thanks to the competitions and conflicts caused by capitalism, some interested party may need to use those weapons. If there would and could not be a need for such weapons of mass destruction, and if the capitalists of the world were truly so united about unconventional warfare being a terrible threat to themselves, don't you think they would have completely rid themselves of such arsenals?

Conspiratorial thinking has it wrong. Ultimately, no human beings reign omnipotent in this system. No one is fully indispensable to the system, not even elements and sections of the ruling classes. The system's needs at any certain juncture prevail upon the ruling classes and dictate their course as their interests are affected. IT compels them to make war at times. I don't believe in the great man-evil madman narrative interpretations of history.
Revolutionaries need ENABLING historical thought, to slay this hydra called capitalism, and bring birth instead to a new society where humanity and its system are actually one and the same thing for the first time.

[TrotskistMarx]

Workersadvocate: There is a saying that says: "People have the rulers that they deserve" And what you said about finding *motivation*, inspiration and stimulation to spread socialism propaganda in a society that would probably insult you, offend you and get violent if you try to tell them that socialism is the only solution for USA.

In a society of people who are social phobic and very introverted like most americans are, it is real real hard to spread socialism propaganda. The intellectuals of the left will have to figure out a way so that the poor and exploited of USA would support socialism as the only solution for their poverty and misery

.


I don't have the power to do jack shit at this point, and struggle to find the basic motivation to change that if it even can be changed. Hard to give a shit about people who don't give a shit or basically just want this system. The war drums are beating against Iran...but if you live in America, look around, nobody gives a shit, since it's "over there" and nobody here thinks anything can touch us offensively. Nothing to worry about unless they are in the military (less than 1% of the US population). Americans just assume that the other great powers will maybe whine a bit but get out of the USA's way in the end like usual. Maybe ot'll cost a lot if money to wage that war "over there", but who cares, it's what we Americans do to make sure nobody can ever touch us. That's how most Americans think of it...any evil os acceptable for "our country" to perpetrate so long as no "bad guys" are attacking us in our own yards, homes and streets and we can continue watching sports, going to church, drinking at the bars, shopping at the malls, driving our cars and watching TV like nothing matters.
Ever wonder what would happen if those distractions, conveniences, comforts taken for granted, and room to escape the consequences of warmongering were somehow taken away and "shit finally got real" for Americans on their own turf? What would happen if the power went out, they couldn't trust their own food and water, it wasn't necessarily safe to go roaming around in public, logistical and communication systems have broken down, civil authority is not readily available and calling 911 won't do you any good?
I don't mean that by itself would solve things. The revolutionary alternative must be prepared and already a significant fact of life for many working people in order to resolve the question. But, my point is, so long as American life as we know it essentially continues, forget about mass support for a revolutionary systematic change. No pain, no gain. Gotta get the American " monkey on our back" out of the way first. Make going back impossible.
Kill the American Dream that keeps people asleep and docile and comforted. Wake up...monsters are real, and they've been running society a long time, and now we suffer for allowing them to rule while we were fucking around doing our own things and not giving a fuck. When pain comes to themselves, suddenly people begin to give a fuck and want to do something to stop that pain. It won't be nice rational arguments that pursuade most people...it will be the choice between more pain or a chance to stop that pain and maybe even rebuild a better world. Revolution, to stop the killing and dying and suffering around us, not because of what somebody else said in a book a century ago.

What do you suppose it would realize take to create mass support and active involvement in a proletarian revolution in the USA? The paths of less resistance must be gone, and survival of the many depends on successful revolution.

[Blake's Baby]

August, you're a sensible and intelligent poster and I'm not going to take the disagreement any further than to say this:

In my estimation, you give capitalism as a system too much credit for being rational and logical.

In terms of the original question, in my view, the US can only be stopped by the working class in the US massively increasing its consciousness and combativity.

[The Αnarchist Tension]

I think that it would probably have to be a joint effort by some of the most powerful nations in the world. China, Russia - and possibly the EU would be needed (Which would obviously ally with the US).

[eyedrop]

I'm sadly finding myself leaning to Blake's side (Nothing personal, I just find your viewpoint sobering), and in my view it all hinges on how international the major power brokers are. As long as we still have European and American corporations instead of international ones I could see things blowing up fast.

[Hexen]

I guess you don't understand AugustWest's point that there isn't necessarily a conspiracy but rather the world currently functions in the capitalist system (unlike it was in the Cold War and previously) much like socialism/communism will in the future.

[piet11111]

The EU is already showing signs of splitting up with the Germans eager to impose a dictatorship over Greece now that the EU members fail to get along then who can seriously claim that the USA will be able to peacefully coexist with Russia and China in the next few decades.

Capitalism is not a unifying factor as the market is no longer growing but shrinking all of the players are going to have to do their utmost to take the largest share of the pie or risk losing theirs.

The way i see it things look quite a bit like the years before WW1 where country's are forming blocks with those that share similar economic interests.

[eyedrop]

I guess you don't understand AugustWest's point that there isn't necessarily a conspiracy but rather the world currently functions in the capitalist system (unlike it was in the Cold War and previously) much like socialism/communism will in the future.

Can you stop being so condescending and assume that if someone disagree with you they don't understand the arguement.

No conspiracy needed, just that there exist companies with largely national interests, and companies that are more international. There are no secret that the government asks industrialists and such for opinions on policies and such, if you want I can see if I can dig up some articles(from major Norwegian newspapers talking about it in positive terms) from the 2008 crisis.

I can certainly agree that companies these days are way more internationally intertwined than in the 30'ies so that may be enough to avoid large scale war but I'm not all that sure.

[Blake's Baby]

I guess you don't understand AugustWest's point that there isn't necessarily a conspiracy but rather the world currently functions in the capitalist system (unlike it was in the Cold War and previously) much like socialism/communism will in the future.

Yeah, that's it. Anyone who doesn't accept the point under contention must 'not understand' rather than understanding the point but disagreeing.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Getting back to the original question, I do not see any power able to stop the USA today, but China is rapidly developing and in ten or twenty years could be the main imperial rival to the USA. This China of the future might then form an anti-US bloc with Russia and this Sino-Russian alliance could rival the USA as an international power.

[Blake's Baby]

Well thing is, globalization (of capitalism) has pretty much help prevented WWIII so far...

Proof it was globalization (of capitalism) and not... oooh, class struggle, for instance, that has prevented WWIII so far, please.

[piet11111]

Getting back to the original question, I do not see any power able to stop the USA today, but China is rapidly developing and in ten or twenty years could be the main imperial rival to the USA. This China of the future might then form an anti-US bloc with Russia and this Sino-Russian alliance could rival the USA as an international power.

They already are the USA's main rival though not on an equal footing militarily or politically.
But this can change with American decline and if they manage to continue their economic growth. (but this seems extremely difficult in the current economic situation)

And with the shanghai cooperation organisation they already formed a bloc that is aimed directly at American interests.

[TrotskistMarx]

True, and another person here said that capitalists are not united. And it is not a global conspiracy. Well what is Davos? Bilderberg Group, The IMF, The World Bank, The Club of Rome, The Club of Paris. I think it was Josef Stalin or another writter who wrote that capitalists have higher education, than the oppressed working classes. And have a higher standard of living, less stressful and all that, and a more comfortable lifestyle (Less Stress). And i recall Lenin who claimed that humans are unable to think when they are at the edge of a cliff.

Well, isn't the working class, and the un-employed class (who are worse than the working class) and the majority of people we see every day at the edge of a cliff and totally depressed and stressed? well what I mean is that by the nature of the high levels of pain of the oppressed it is a lot harder for the oppressed to organize, to be united than for the oppressors.

The opressors organize and unite very easy. They do all these seminars like Davos and all that. The left has these Leftist forums, World Social Forum, socialism forums in USA. But a minority of the oppressed attend those meetings. The left will have to find a way to organize better. Because the oligarchs, the capitalists are always organized and united

thank



Enough with the fear mongering, what AugustWest is also trying to imply that the world is capitalist and a nuclear war would pretty much break/sabotage the capitalist system like SOPA would have to the internet for example.

[piet11111]

Well what is Davos? Bilderberg Group, The IMF, The World Bank, The Club of Rome, The Club of Paris.

That is their best attempt at creating a unified approach towards international problems but if you think they can find consensus all the time then you are not paying attention.

What is good for the banks is bad for industry what is good for Germany is bad for Greece what is good for America is bad for Russia etc etc etc.